<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (2) TMI 147 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46819</link>
    <description>Writ petitions remained maintainable despite an alternate appellate remedy because departmental authorities were bound by Board circulars but judicial discipline required the Revenue to follow a binding Tribunal decision unless stayed or reversed; a circular or trade notice could not override that decision. Site fabrication of columns, trusses, girders and similar structurals from duty-paid materials, meant for immediate incorporation into factory sheds or rolling mills, did not amount to manufacture because no new marketable excisable goods came into existence. The fabricated items were treated as part of immovable structures, so no excise duty was leviable and the adjudication orders were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:13:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 147 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46819</link>
      <description>Writ petitions remained maintainable despite an alternate appellate remedy because departmental authorities were bound by Board circulars but judicial discipline required the Revenue to follow a binding Tribunal decision unless stayed or reversed; a circular or trade notice could not override that decision. Site fabrication of columns, trusses, girders and similar structurals from duty-paid materials, meant for immediate incorporation into factory sheds or rolling mills, did not amount to manufacture because no new marketable excisable goods came into existence. The fabricated items were treated as part of immovable structures, so no excise duty was leviable and the adjudication orders were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>